tvc184

I heard he was the WOS first choice but he knew the PNG job was coming up and….

I would imagine it will be a good turnout, maybe not even to protest but just to hear what is happening and see who votes yes or no. I would actually expect that no matter who the coach is going to be.

That would imply that there are rumors out there that are not true. Surely that is not correct…..

Apparently 1984 went from being basically a textbook for most high school students to, I’m sorry young adults but you can’t handle this fiction… Because it might be (is) coming true.

As opposed than a dyed in the wool Foreman supporter?

Is that depending on Biden not on the ballot? If Biden decides to run, is the rest of the Democratic Party going to choose anybody but Biden?

KY HB91 constitutional amendment only allows KY to pass an abortion/anti-abortion law…. which they did in 2018. I think that is it one of the United States Supreme Court is debating. If the United States of Supreme Court upholds the Kentucky 11 week abortion ban as lawful under the United States Constitution, a person in Kentucky could always come back and contest the 11 week ban under the state constitution. HB91 would nullify any such Kentucky Constitution question because their Constitution says under HB91 that abortion is not a right. The Texas law is an entirely different ball game.

Again, hopefully the Court will overturn this disastrous Texas law but uphold the Kentucky law as a means to give states more authority.

It has been almost 30 years ago but Larry Neumann was not a head coach when he came to Nederland. He was an assistant coach at Thomas Jefferson in Port Arthur. There were almost certainly other applicants, some with head coaching experience and maybe good records. For whatever reason, Nederland decided to go outside and hire an untested assistant. Neumann was thought to be a good fit for that job. I think it worked out well for them. Hopefully Coach Hickman with no head coaching experience, is that good fit and can do the same at WOS.

You betcha….. I would venture to guess that this was not a blindside and nobody behind the scenes saw this coming. The superintendent, like a city manager, is hired by the board/council to work for them and be the administrator of what they want done. Surely there were discussions or indications behind the scenes.

Wait for it…..

Lest ye go against the Democrat establishment party line….. No matter what side of the aisle you are on, most people probably agree in general that the Democrats appear in lockstep in public. When they walk out of that smoke filled room for a meeting with the Speaker of the House, they all sing the same song. They might not do so behind closed doors but in public they always stick together. They could be good because I also be very bad. Now we are beginning to see what happens when a very few of them try to step off of the sinking ship.

Thanks…. But some might think I am a self proclaimed facebook lawyer. 😆

Like driving away to be safe and not creating the confrontation…..

That is why in my comment previously I said, it was difficult because we really don’t know what happened. We could easily do a what if scenario where the officer jumped out of his truck to stop the guy and the guy reached into his pocket and said I’m going to stab you. At that point the game changes. It would be easy for a witness 50 feet away who did not hear or see exactly what was happening to tell the media, he shot the guy for breaking his windshield wiper. I could probably fill up a book with things I have heard during investigations that was not a lie but turned out not to be true. It is what the person saw or heard and from their vantage point it looked like something that it was not. Add example locally was a few years ago when an off-duty officer in Orange shot and killed a guy at an auto parts store. A guy was making racial slurs and causing at disturbance at the store when an off duty officer who was shopping at the store in plain clothes, told him to be quiet. The officer then told the man he was under arrest. The man made some comments something like the also was not in uniform so he didn’t have to comply or he was not a real cop or whatever. The guy tried to get into a truck to leave (as a passenger) and the officer pulled a handgun and pointed at the guy and told him to stop. At some point in the interaction the guy tried to head butt or lunge for the officer’s weapon. He fired one time and killed a man. Of course the comments came out that the office duty officer killed a man for profanity and racial slurs. No, he tried to arrest the man for the comments but used deadly force in self-defense of his person when he reasonably believe the man was trying to take his gun away. Just like the off-duty officer with the windshield wiper, it may not have been what started the incident but it may have escalated to a point of lawful deadly force. Deadly force to protect yourself from an attack is a lot more simple to explain I think. Generally the other person has to be doing something unlawful that can cause you serious bodily injury or death. Under Texas law as long as you’re legally at your location, you have no duty to retreat but you cannot be committing a crime. An example would be if you broke into someone’s house and they pulled a gun on you, you could not shoot them in self-defense. You were the one committing the crime of burglary by breaking into the home. In Texas if you can make a claim of self-defense, the burden of proof is on the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt it was not self-defense. Also in Texas, you can use force or deadly force to protect another person or another person’s property just as if it was your own if you have a reasonable belief that if you were in the same situation, it would be lawful.

Yep, if you take opinions out of a forum designed for people to give their opinions……

Just like a bomb threat. I guess active shooter has a better potential of reality than a bomb threat. Call in a fake report and watch the police respond….

And I am sure there will be a completely new thread when a new coach is named.

Is there a way? Sure. Why would we? It hasn’t gotten out of hand as far as I can see and it’s just speculation of a who might be the next coach, with some humor thrown in

I thought they only had the right to exist on my dinner plate…..

I have long suspected that of traffic cameras…… I have had contact with a few and some of them are just throwed off.

We might need to see if we can get together a road trip. Hippy, Bullets13; Hagar, Big Girl, InMAGAwetrust, Unwoke…….

And that’s trying to adequately explain a relatively short and easy to understand law…….

This is not legal advice but just telling you what I think the law says after almost 38 years in the business and being to probably over 150 homicide scenes. To use deadly force to protect property only from a theft, there are two requirements. 1. it has to be in the nighttime. AND 2. You had a reasonable belief that the property could not be recovered by other means OR trying to stop the person would expose you to a substantial risk of serious bodily injury or death. The same requirements apply to recovering property that was taken in a burglary, robbery or aggravated robbery except…… The difference is that those do not require to be taken place in the nighttime. The way I read that law says that for example you come home during the daylight and you found your home has been broken into. The person is still there and runs away and you can see that he has your wife’s purse in his hand. Again, if there is a reasonable belief that the property would not be recovered (in my opinion meaning that he gets away) or that trying to stop him with less the deadly force would expose you to a substantial risk of serious injury or death, then deadly force would be lawful. Entering your home unlawfully to steal something is a burglary. Now let’s say the exact same situation during the day but this time your wife left her purse on the porch. No entry was gained so it was just a theft and not a burglary. A daytime theft does not authorize deadly force in any situation. if that was true then a store owner could shoot a shoplifter running out with a pack of gum. So the only difference between these two situations is that the guy went into your home to steal a purse or he stayed outside and stole the same item. One might be seen as justified and the other might get your life in prison. If a person has not displayed a weapon and you cannot see something that may be a weapon on him such as a handgun under a shirt, you might have a hard time claiming that the person posed a substantial risk to you. We can play what if with different scenarios such as he looked like a high school linebacker and a guy like me who 66 years old and overweight might be no match for him. That might bring a reasonable belief that he would be a substantial risk of seriously injuring me. If it is a guy that appears to be unarmed, is elderly and limps, it might be hard to say that he was a serious risk or going to get away. So it depends on the situation at hand. Is the person getting away with property a substantial risk or is it likely the person will get away with the property? If the answer is yes, then deadly force is likely lawful under Texas law… assuming it is nighttime or to stop a burglary or robbery. Using the case of an aggravated robbery as an example (and again not legal advice), a guy pulls a gun or knife on you and takes your wallet and turns his back and runs. The questions become, are you trying to recover property? Yes if he still has your property. If he throws it down then they use of deadly force is not lawful as you are no longer trying to get your property back. If the answer is yes he still has it, would it expose you to the substantial risk of serious injury or death? I would say that the mere fact that he has a knife or a gun and just pulled it on you makes irt clear in my opinion that he poses a substantial risk and therefore deadly force is authorized. This is the actual law… Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property: (1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and (2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary: (A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or (B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and (3) he reasonably believes that: (A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or (B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury. What I can tell you about reading a law is, pay attention to “and” and “or”. If you say the word “and”, then everything previous to that is required. If you see the word “or”, each part of the sentence or section of the law stands alone. So if a law says (a), (b) AND (c) then all 3 are required. If a law says (a), (b) OR (c) then each stands alone. Examples from above.: (2)(A) above does not require (B). It says to prevent the crimes listed under (A) … OR… (B) to prevent escape. If one of those situations exists (only one is required since it says “or”), then you are required to also refer to (3) because after (2) it says “and” (3). So…. For deadly force to be legal to protect property you must meet the requirements in (2)(A) or (2)(B) and the requirements in (3)(A) or (3)(B). So here’s the legal options if these situations exist in my opinion…. (2)(A) + (3)(A) (2)(A) + (3)(B) (2)(B) + (3)(A) (2)(B) + (3)(B) This law says (2) and (3) are required to use deadly force to protect property. Both have an (A) or (B) option. It also says (1) is required but that requires you had a lawful right to the property, the other person had no lawful right to the property and the use of force one “immediately necessary”. I hate to be that long winded and it’s really not that difficult but you have to read it exactly as it is written. Reading or understanding only part of it May lead to a bad understanding and consequences. And I almost forgot, back to your question. If a guy is driving away with your truck can you use deadly force? Let’s apply that law. If it is just stolen property and it is daylight, then the answer in my opinion is no. if it is the nighttime then you have met one element. Then it goes to, is the guy likely to get away or will expose you to a substantial risk of death or serious injury. Without going any further into it my inclamation and say yes, if you try to stop a guy driving away in a vehicle it would expose you to serious injury or death and he is also likely to get away. To go just a tad further, what if he pulled a gun on someone in order to steal the vehicle?. That would become an aggravated robbery and I think the production of the weapon would make a deadly force in such a situation lawful. Even further, you see a guy trying to hotwire your truck and you are outside to stop him. He does not display a weapon but tells you if you come closer he will kill you. That likely just became a robbery with the threat of death during a theft and like the law stated above, you could use deadly force to stop a burglary, robbery or aggravated robbery or theft in the nighttime. Whew!!!

The law is not subjective and is clear. Human opinion is absolutely subjective. This was difficult because we really don’t know what happened. “What if” can give a lot of scenarios.